published by: government of nepal district profile_1466674708.pdf · government of nepal ... 2.19...

Government of Nepal

Ministry of Agricultural Development

PPCR/BRCH/AMIS Project Management Unit (PMU)

Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal

Phone: +97714211832

Fax: +97714211935

Email:[email protected]

url: www.namis.gov.np

Published By:

District Profile: Siraha

MoAD/BRCH/Agriculture Management Information System. Page i

ACRONYMS AMIS : Agriculture Management Information System

ASC : Agriculture Sub Centre

BRCH : Building Resilience to Climate Related Hazards

CBO : Community Based Organizations

DADO : District Agricultural Development Office

DDC : District Development Committee

DLSO : District Livestock Service Office

EWS : Early Warning System

FFS : Farmers Field School

HH : HH

INGO : International Non-Government Organization

KII : Key Informants Interview

LSC : Livestock Service Centre

MoAD : Ministry of Agriculture Development

NARC : Nepal Agricultural Research Council

NGO : Non-Government Organization

PMU : Project Management Unit

PPCR : Pilot Program for Climate Resilience

VDC : Village Development Committee

WUG : Water User’s Group


MoAD/BRCH/Agriculture Management Information System. Page ii

Contents CHAPTER I:INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 General Information ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Land Utilization .................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Climate and Rainfall ........................................................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER II: DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARECTERSTICS ................................................ 1

2.1 Population by age group and sex ........................................................................................................................ 1

2.2 Household head and members ............................................................................................................................ 2

2.3 Marital Status of head of households.................................................................................................................. 2

2.4 Educational status, distance and time spent for schooling .................................................................................. 3

2.5 Accessibility to Educational Institutions in terms of Distance and Time Spent ................................................. 3

2.6 Occupation.......................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.7 Migration ............................................................................................................................................................ 5

2.8 Alignment of HH Members with Institutions ..................................................................................................... 5

2.9 Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................................................. 6

2.10 Housing Ownership .......................................................................................................................................... 6

2.11 Households Asset ............................................................................................................................................. 7

2.12 Food Security Status ......................................................................................................................................... 7

2.13 Source of Energy .............................................................................................................................................. 8

2.14 Source of Drinking water ................................................................................................................................. 8

2.15 Toilet Facility ................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.16 Households Consulting Health Institutions ...................................................................................................... 9

2.17 Households Income and Expenditure ............................................................................................................... 9

2.18 Credit Situation ............................................................................................................................................... 10

2.19 Agricultural Insurance for Protecting Risks on Crops and Livestock ............................................................ 11

2.20 Reasons for Non-Insuring ............................................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER III: AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTIVITY ............................................................ 14

3.1 Land Holding .................................................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Use of Land by Type ........................................................................................................................................ 14

3.3 Source of Irrigation: ......................................................................................................................................... 14

3.4 Cropping Patterns and Cropped Area ............................................................................................................... 15

3.5 Use of improved seeds ...................................................................................................................................... 16

3.6 Marketing of Farm Product .............................................................................................................................. 17

3.7 Use of Chemical Fertilizers and Pesticides ...................................................................................................... 17

3.8 Sources of Fertilizers/Pesticides ....................................................................................................................... 18

3.9 Reason for Low Use of Fertilizers/Pesticides: .................................................................................................. 19

3.10 Livestock Production ...................................................................................................................................... 19

3.12 Livestock Housing and Feeding ..................................................................................................................... 20

3.13 Milk and Milk Products .................................................................................................................................. 20

3.14 Feeds and feeding ........................................................................................................................................... 21

3.14 Poultry ............................................................................................................................................................ 21

3.16 Fishery ............................................................................................................................................................ 22


MoAD/BRCH/Agriculture Management Information System. Page iii

3.17 Forest .............................................................................................................................................................. 22

CHAPTER IV: CLIMATE CHANGE, AGRO & AGRO-MET ADVISORY .......................................................... 23

4.1 Climatic Hazards, their Occurrence and Support ............................................................................................. 23

4.2 Experience on different types Climatic Extremes in different Seasons ............................................................ 24

4.3 Early Warning Messages .................................................................................................................................. 25

4.3.1 Perception about the Need of Types of Communication Media for Early Warning .................................. 25

4.3.2 Accessibility to Agricultural Advice and Sources ..................................................................................... 26

4.3.3 Need for Agro Advisory ............................................................................................................................ 26

4.3.4 Communication and Media for Agricultural Program ............................................................................... 27

Annex1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 28


MoAD/BRCH/Agriculture Management Information System. Page 1

CHAPTER I:INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Information

Siraha is one of the Terai districts of 25 pilot districts of Building Resilience to Climate Related Hazards

Project (BRCH), situated in Sagarmatha zone of Eastern Development Region (EDR).Siraha district

expands in an area of (1228 km2) 1188 square Km between Udayapur district in the north, Saptari district

in East, Dhanusha district in the west and Bihar Pradesh of India in the south. The district has two

municipalities and 106 VDCs and the head quarter of the district is Siraha Municipality. This district is

extends from 86°06’ E to 86°26’ E longitude and 26°33’ N to 26°55’ N of latitude. (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Location Map of SirahaDistrict



The topography of the district is almost same as other Terai districts, which varies from plain Terai

(98.69%) to siwalik (chure) hills.(1.31%) It lies on the south east the Nepal with the elevation which

begins from 76(location) meter above the sea level (msl) to highest point of 885(location) meter above

the sea level.

The population of the district consists of 6,37,328 with 3,10,101 (48.65%) male and 3,27,227 (51.34%)

female. The total household of the district was 1,17,962 HH with average HH size of 5.4 as of 2011

census. Annual population growth rate is 1.17% with a density of 536.47persons/sq.km., which is higher

than national population density of 180 persons/sq. km. as of 2011 census. (CBS 2011)

1.2 Land Utilization

The total area of the district is 122,797 ha with total cultivated land area of 60,677 ha, which consisted of

49.41% of the total land area (DADO, 2014). Out of the cultivated area; 39,871.5 ha (65.71%) was

irrigated, of which 21,533.5 ha was year round irrigated and 18,338 ha was partially irrigated area. The

district constitute of 1613 ha (1.31%) of chure area. The district has 27708 ha (22.56%) forest area,

1314.2 ha (15%) pasture area.

1.3 Climate and Rainfall

Consistent to the national topographical variation, the district has also the diversity of weather and

climate according to the elevation of the district.

Tropical climate: Areas located at altitudes below of 300 msl consisted of this type of climate, where

summer is hot and winter is warm. Plenty of agricultural land is available in this area. Hence, crops like

rice, maize, wheat, sugarcane and lentil are produced. Different type of vegetables and fruits like mango,

litchi, pineapple, jackfruit, and banana etc. are commonly cultivated.

Sub-tropical climate: Areas located at altitudes of 300 to 800 msl consisted of this type of climate, where

summer is hot and winter is cool. Agricultural land suitable for rice, maize, wheat, sugarcane, and black

gram are available in this climatic area. Different type of vegetables and fruits are commonly cultivated.

in this area.

The average temperature of the district varies from minimum 9.10C in the winter to maximum 30.80C in

the summer; and average rainfall varies from 124 mm to 3521 mm. The detailed climatological records of

the district is presented in Annex 1.

District Profile Siraha


CHAPTER II: DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARECTERSTICS

This section focuses on the demographic and socio-economic characteristic like age and sex distribution

of the HH heads, literacy and education, marital status, occupation, ethnicity, migration, ownership of

the HH, sources of energy, toilet and health institution, income and expenditure, capital information,

insurance etc.

Table 1.1: Summary statistics of demographic and other household characteristics

Description CBS, 2011 Base line survey

2015

Sex ratio (number of males per 100 females) 94.8 117.77

Dependency ratio 60.61

Household (HH) size 5.40 5.68

Percent of female headed households 20.76 6.88

HH (%) who own their housing unit 96.63 99.29

HH (%) with piped drinking water 5.46 2.43

HH (%) with access to electricity 67.27 87.68

HH (%) with access to Telephone/Mobile 74.94

HH (%) with toilet 21.27 56.10

HH (%) using firewood for cooking 36.59 27.68

Literacy rate 50.7 67.34

2.1 Population by age group and sex

The following table presents information on the distribution of population by age group and sex of the

household members. The male population of 54.08 percent is higher than 45.92 percent of female

population giving sex ratio of 117.77 in the district. About 30.22 percent of population were under 15

years and 7.52 percent were of 60 years or more old. Thus majority of population (62.26%) were from

age group 15-59 years (Table 1.2).The survey data revealed that the overall dependency ratio is 60.61

percent. Regarding the HH size, the average HH size of the district is found to be 5.68 compared to 5.40

as of 2011 census.

Table 1.2: Distribution of population by age and sex

Age Group

Gender Total

Male Female

No. % No. % No. %

1-4 Years 26391 3.93 25536 3.81 51927 7.74

5-9 Years 39861 5.94 32270 4.81 72131 10.75

10-14 Years 45255 6.75 33476 4.99 78731 11.73

15-19 Years 35432 5.28 25148 3.75 60580 9.03

20-24 Years 31994 4.77 30561 4.56 62555 9.32

25-29 Years 30819 4.59 31030 4.63 61849 9.22

30-34 Years 30785 4.59 28677 4.27 59462 8.86

35-39 Years 27633 4.12 21385 3.19 49018 7.31

40-44 Years 18000 2.68 19990 2.98 37990 5.66

45-49 Years 17442 2.60 13149 1.96 30591 4.56

50-54 Years 15382 2.29 13761 2.05 29143 4.34

55-59 Years 13815 2.06 12646 1.88 26461 3.94

60-64 Years 11214 1.67 9522 1.42 20736 3.09

65+Years 18783 2.80 10953 1.63 29736 4.43

Total 362806 54.08 308104 45.92 670910 100.00



Source: Annex Table 1

2.2 Household head and members

Son/daughter constituted largest percentage (38.86%) of household members followed by household

heads which constituted 17.58 percent of the population (Table 1.3).

Table 1.3: Percentage of population by relation to HH head and gender

Relation to HH Head

Gender

Male Female Total

No. % No. % No. %

Head 109839 16.37 8091 1.21 117930 17.58

Husband/wife 4185 0.62 105334 15.70 109519 16.32

Son/daughter 183906 27.41 76844 11.45 260750 38.86

Grand children 50089 7.47 39059 5.82 89148 13.29

Son/daughter in law 2529 0.38 64809 9.66 67338 10.04

Daughter/son in law 1116 0.17 1395 0.21 2511 0.37

Parent 5319 0.79 6750 1.01 12069 1.80

Father/mother in law 279 0.04 279 0.04 558 0.08

Brother/sister in law 3906 0.58 3627 0.54 7533 1.12

Household widow 0 0.00 558 0.08 558 0.08

Others 1674 0.25 1395 0.21 3069 0.46

Total 362842 54.08 308141 45.92 670983 100.00


From the Table 1.3, it is seen that out of 17.58 percent household heads, female formed 1.21 percent of

heads in comparison to 16.37 percent of male members who were household heads thus giving overall

female household head percentage as 6.88.

2.3 Marital Status of head of households

A total of 66.67 percent of HH members were married. Widow members of the household constituted

3.02 percent of the population. A total of 19.48 percent of population were unmarried male whereas

unmarried female population accounted for 10.37 percent of total population.

Table 1.4: Population by marital status and gender in pilot districts

Marital Status

Gender Total

Male Female

Number % Number % Number %

Married 182474 33.36 182141 33.30 364615 66.67

Divorced 576 0.11 855 0.16 1431 0.26

Separate 837 0.15 279 0.05 1116 0.20

Widow/widower 6174 1.13 10359 1.89 16533 3.02

Unmarried 106522 19.48 56699 10.37 163221 29.84

Total 296583 54.23 250333 45.77 546916 100.00


Female gender had higher percentage of widow (1.89%) than male gender (1.13%).



2.4 Educational status, distance and time spent for schooling

According to 1991 census, literacy was defined as the “ability to read and write in any language with

understanding and the ability to do simple arithmetic calculations”. The same definition was used in the

censuses of 2001 and 2011.

The literacy rate of the district of age 5 and above is found to be 67.34 percent compared to 47 percent in

2011 census showing that the literacy rate has been increased over the period of time. As regards to the

educational status, the share of can read and write is high at 29.84 percent, is followed by primary level

(19.70%), lower secondary (14.82%), and secondary (10.64%).

Table 1.5 Percentage of population by education level and gender

Education Level

Gender Total

Male Female

No. % No. % No. %

Cannot read and write 855 0.14 16590 2.68 17445 2.82

Can read and write 70759 11.43 113950 18.41 184709 29.84

Beginners 12015 1.94 11790 1.90 23805 3.85

Primary (1-5) 71667 11.58 50260 8.12 121927 19.70

L. Secondary (6-8) 56996 9.21 34766 5.62 91762 14.82

Secondary (9-10) 44326 7.16 21538 3.48 65864 10.64

SLC/Equivalent 38539 6.23 15750 2.54 54289 8.77

Inter/Equivalent 23060 3.73 12332 1.99 35392 5.72

Grad/Equivalent 12906 2.08 3645 0.59 16551 2.67

PG/Equi/above 5319 0.86 1971 0.32 7290 1.18

Total 336442 54.35 282592 45.65 619034 100.00


2.5 Accessibility to Educational Institutions in terms of Distance and Time Spent

Currently 30.97 percent of the family members of age 5 and above are going to educational institutions.

Survey data showed that proportion of them is higher in case of male than female, which constituted

17.76 percent and 13.21 percent of their population respectively.

Table1.6: Population by going to school (>5 years)

Going to School

Gender

Male Female Total

No. % No. % No. %

Yes 109855 17.76 81696 13.21 191551 30.97

No 226595 36.64 200356 32.39 426951 69.03

Total 336450 54.40 282052 45.60 618502 100.00

Annex Table 5

As regards to the accessibility to educational institutions in terms of time, 73.41 percent of the

respondents have reported that distance to reach is less than 1 km, whereas 18.41 percent reported

distance of 1-5 km and only 1.31 percent reported distance of 5-10 km (Table1.7).

Table1.7 Population by distance to education institution (>5 years)

Distance

Gender Total

Male Female

No. % No. % No. %

Less than 1km 77133 40.27 63484 33.14 140617 73.41



1-5 km 21539 11.25 13726 7.17 35265 18.41

5-10 km 1953 1.02 558 0.29 2511 1.31

Greater than 10 km 9225 4.82 3924 2.05 13149 6.86

Total 109850 57.35 81692 42.65 191542 100.00


Accessibility to educational institution by gender shows that 85.37 percent of the respondents have

reported that institutions can be reached within less than 1 hour (Table 1.8).

Table 1.8 Population by time taken to education institution (>5 years)

Time taken

Gender Total

Male Female

No. % No. % No. %

Less than 1 hour 91645 47.84 71875 37.52 163520 85.37

1-2 hours 11493 6.00 6732 3.51 18225 9.51

More than 2 hours 6714 3.51 3087 1.61 9801 5.12

Total 109852 57.35 81694 42.65 191546 100.00


Regarding mode of transport, 77.05 percent of the population reported travelling on foot to educational

institution, 13.43 percent using bicycle and 6.44 percent reported using school bus (Table 1.9)

Table1.9: Population by mode of transportation to education institution (>5 years)

Mode of transport

Gender Total

Male Female

No. % No. % No. %

On foot 78491 71.45 69084 36.07 147575 77.05

Bus 9766 8.89 2565 1.34 12331 6.44

Bicycle 17912 16.31 7812 4.08 25724 13.43

Foot and bus 2250 2.05 1395 0.73 3645 1.90

Other 1431 1.30 837 0.44 2268 1.18

Total 109850 100.00 81693 42.65 191543 100.00


2.6 Occupation

A total of 24.73 percent of the population has adopted their main occupation as agriculture in their own

land, and few segments of the population (2.15%) have adopted their main occupation as agriculture in

the basis of salary/wage work. Household work as their occupation accounting for 23.08 percent is

followed by student accounting for 22.81 percent. About 11.94 percent of the population was engaged in

external jobs in abroad. Occupational pattern is more or less same in case of male and female except in

case of salaried non agriculture occupation and abroad external job where female participation is quite

low i.e. only 1.64 and 1.17 percent in comparison to 8.32 and 10.76 percent reported by male.

Table 1.10: Distribution of population by types of occupation

Main Occupation

Gender Total

Male Female

No. % No. % No. %

Own agriculture 78311 14.32 56960 10.41 135271 24.73

Salaried/wage agriculture 9504 1.74 2250 0.41 11754 2.15

Non agriculture salary 45498 8.32 8964 1.64 54462 9.96

Own enterprises 14220 2.60 2043 0.37 16263 2.97

Abroad external job 58858 10.76 6417 1.17 65275 11.94

Household work 7551 1.38 118696 21.70 126247 23.08



Student 73658 13.47 51098 9.34 124756 22.81

No work 7011 1.28 2232 0.41 9243 1.69

Other 1971 0.36 1674 0.31 3645 0.67

Total 296582 54.23 250334 45.77 546916 100.00


2.7 Migration

Among the migrated population, looking for work is the main reason for migration as has been reported

by 40.46 percent of the households, followed by 4.16 percent for education/training purpose and 1.99

percent for easier lifestyle.

Table 1.11: Reasons of migration of the HH’s members

Reason for Migration

HH

No %

Family reason 837 0.50

Education/training 6995 4.16

Natural disaster 837 0.50

Looking for work 68049 40.46

Easier lifestyle 3349 1.99

No migration 87288 51.90

Other reason 837 0.50

Total 168192 100.00 Source: Annex Table 12

2.8 Alignment of HH Members with Institutions

For facilitating the transaction or to get knowledge about something, different people get associated in

different institutions. Among the people who are associated with various institutions, 5.55 percent of the

population are associated with saving and credit cooperative followed by agricultural cooperatives

(3.58%), seed production group (3.49%) and vegetable group (3.29%). However, other than the above

mentioned institutions, their associations in category ‘others’ are found to be high at 21.91 percent.

Table 1.12: Members of the households (>=10 years) associated with different institutions

Types of organizations

Gender

Male Female Total

No. % No. % No. %

Farmers Field School 8128 1.49 7290 1.33 15418 2.82

Vegetable 4761 0.87 13221 2.42 17982 3.29

Water Users Group 15174 2.77 1953 0.36 17127 3.13

Commercial Crop Production 8964 1.64 3663 0.67 12627 2.31

Saving credit co-operative 24472 4.47 5859 1.07 30331 5.55

Agricultural co-op group 14265 2.61 5337 0.98 19602 3.58

Agriculture marketing 6174 1.13 7272 1.33 13446 2.46

Seed production 7569 1.38 11493 2.10 19062 3.49

Other 48452 8.86 71353 13.05 119805 21.91

Not in Group 158609 29.00 122883 22.47 281492 51.47

Total 296568 54.23 250324 45.77 546892 100.00




2.9 Ethnicity

As per the table 1.13, the distribution of population by ethnicity revealed that majority of the population

residing in the district constituted Madhesi, which accounted for 75.74 percent of the total population,

followed by Adibasi/Janajati (11.44%) and Brahmin/Chhetri (5.14%), and Dalit (0.91%).

Table 1.13: Distribution of population by ethnicity

Ethnicity

Gender Total

Male Female

No. % No. % No. %

Adibasi/Janajati 40628 6.05 36110 5.38 76738 11.44

Brahman/Chhetri 18686 2.78 15825 2.36 34511 5.14

Dalit 3069 0.46 3069 0.46 6138 0.91

Madhesi 276064 41.14 232168 34.60 508232 75.74

Others 24394 3.64 20974 3.13 45368 6.76

Total 362841 54.08 308146 45.92 670987 100.00


2.10 Housing Ownership

Regarding the ownership of the houses, almost all the HH (99.29%) reported that they have their own

houses. Very insignificant number of HH is found to have lived in relative's house.

Table 1.141: Distribution of ownership of houses by types of houses

Types of house ownership

HH

No. %

Own house 117100 99.29

Rented house - -

Relative's house 837 0.71

Land owner's house (included in rented land) - -

Institutional house - -

Total 117937 100.00


Pakki house is defined as a house built with both walls and roof made from permanent materials like

cement, concrete and bricks. Semi-Pakki is house with either wall or roof constructed by temporary

materials like tin/tile/slate roofing and bamboo. Kachchi house is a house with both walls and roof made

from temporary material such as mud, straw, bamboo and other endurable materials such as straw,

plastics etc.

Among those, who have owned house, large number (48.54%) of the HH were found to have lived in

Semi-pakki houses, 19.35 percent in concrete roof/Pakki houses and only percent of the respondents are

found to have lived in Kacchi/Thatch roofed houses.

Table 1.152: Distribution of houses by types of houses

Type of residential house

HH

No. %

Concrete roof/pakki/cemented 22817 19.35

Semi-pakki (tin/tile/slate roof) 57238 48.54

Kacchi- thatched roof 37871 32.11

Others - -

Total 117926 100.00




2.11 Households Asset

The most common assets owned by the people are found to be assets including jewellery reportedly

constituting 29.63 percent of household items followed by fan/heater, and telephones/mobile phones

constituting 18.07 and 17.60 percent of the asset items. An attempt has been made to calculate the

salvage value of the assets owned by the HH in the current market value. Expensive assets like jewellery

formed largest (37.62%) portion of the net value of the all the assets owned by the households followed

by bus/truck (23.38%), motorcycle/scooter (13.31%), and tractor/power tiller (6.62%). Insignificant

proportion of the net value was represented by the assets like refrigerators, sewing machine etc.

Table 1.16: Distribution of different type of assets and their value

Types of assets

Items Approximate current value

No. % (Rs) %

Radio/ cd player 42131 4.74 46773110 0.27

Cycles 125329 14.11 250186984 1.45

Motorcycle/scooter 31769 3.58 2303541180 13.31

Car/jeep 558 0.06 1172136000 6.77

Bus/truck 1395 0.16 4046660000 23.38

Telephone/mobile 156343 17.60 491989610 2.84

Washing machine - - - -

Refrigerator 2845 0.32 41998027 0.24

Sewing machine 9525 1.07 41464940 0.24

Fan/heater 160490 18.07 241424118 1.40

TV 81542 9.18 710257316 4.10

Assets including Jewelries 263224 29.63 6510503206 37.62

Tractor/power tiller 10136 1.14 1146408300 6.62

Thresher/pump set/sprayers - - - -

Mill/Ghatta/turbine 837 0.09 78142400 0.45

Others 2233 0.25 223264000 1.29

Total 888355 100.00 17304749191 100.00


2.12 Food Security Status

Sufficiency of food and its security to the farmers from their farm is an important indicator of economic

status of the farmers. In this regards, only 14.02% have reported they have food sufficiency for 12 or

more months. A total of 37.87% of the HH have reported that food is sufficient for 9 to 12 months

indicating that the about half of the households in the districts were food deficient.

Table 1.173: Food sufficiency of the HH by duration

Food sufficiency level

HH

No. %

Less than 3 months 8128 6.89

3 to less than 6 months 28329 24.02



12 months or surplus 16534 14.02

Total 117920 100.00




2.13 Source of Energy

As regards to the source of energy for lighting, majority of the households (87.68%) have electricity, 9.48

percent households have used kerosene for lighting, and insignificant percent have used biogas for

lighting.

Among various sources of energy for cooking, cow dung cake was reported to be main fuel for cooking,

accounting for 62.42 percent of the HH followed by timber/firewood (27.68%) and cylinder gas (5.15%).

Table 1.18: Distribution of HH by sources of fuel for lighting and cooking (%)

Purpose Main source of energy

HH

No. %

Light

Electricity 103406 87.68

Biogas 1674 1.42

Solar 1674 1.42

Kerosene 11180 9.48

Other 0.00

Total 117934 100.00

Cooking fuel

Timber/ firewood 32640 27.68

Cow dung cake 73611 62.42

Straw/ dry grass/ eaves/rubbish 5598 4.75

Cylinder gas 6075 5.15

Biogas - -

Kerosene - -

Other - -

Total 117924 100.00

Source: Annex Table 17 and 18

2.14 Source of Drinking water

Source of drinking water refers to the place from where households draw water for drinking and cooking

foods for household members. Hand pump/tube well as a source of drinking water was reported by 90.71

percent of the HH followed by open well (3.31%) and covered well (2.60%). Thus it can be inferred that

still substantial percent of households have no access to safe drinking water.

Table 1.19: Distribution of HH reporting different sources of drinking water

Source HH

No

%

Piped water 2862 2.43

Covered well 3069 2.60

Hand pump/tube-well 106981 90.71

Open well 3907 3.31

Spring water 558 0.47

River - -

Other 558 0.47

Total 117935 100.00




2.15 Toilet Facility

In view of health and healthy environment sanitation is an integral part of life. Majority of households

(56.10%) have access to toilet in their house. About 31.53 percent of the households have reported that

they have toilet with flush (connected to safety tank) followed by toilet without flush (22.87%). Very

insignificant percentage (1.70%) have toilet with flush connected to sewer and 43.90 percent reported no

toilet.

Table 1.20: Distribution of HH using different type of toilets

Types of toilet used

HH

No. %

Toilet with flush (connected to sewer) 2007 1.70

Toilet with flush (connected to safety tank) 37178 31.53

Toilet without flush 26968 22.87

Public toilet - -

No toilet 51772 43.90

Total 117925 100.00


2.16 Households Consulting Health Institutions

There are various kinds of health institutions prevailing in the district. Among all, government’s district

hospital cater substantial percentage of households (31.97%), which is followed by private hospitals

(30.99%), and government health post/centers (23.95%). Ayurveda centers were cited by none of the

households.

Table 1.21: Distribution of HH consulting different health institutions

Health service provider

HH

No. %

Government health post/PHC 28237 23.95

Government district hospital 37699 31.97

Government mobile clinic 558 0.47

Government Ayurveda center - -

Government other institution 1395 1.18

Private hospital 36548 30.99

Private pharmacy/clinic

11511 9.76

Private health worker's home

297 0.25

Private others 1674 1.42

Total 117919 100.00


2.17 Households Income and Expenditure

Income and expenditure measure the status of the living of any HH. Excess in income than expenditure

brings the lively whereas excess in expenditure drives one to debt making life hard. Thus HH's income

and expenditure are two major indicators to measure how and where he stands.

Expenditure can be considered as the ability to expend to some extent for better livelihood in accordance

to one's income. The survey result showed that food constituted highest part of expenditure with 34.71

percent followed by 16.87 percent expenses on education, 15.30 percent on health, and 10.51 percent in

apparel and personal items.

Table 1.22: Expenditure distribution of HH by different items

Items of expenditure HH (No). Total expenditure Average



Rs

%

expenditure/H

H (Rs)

Food 117930 5902027860 34.71 50047

Fuel 34721 412320796 2.42 11875

Apparel and personal items 113464 1787704438 10.51 15756

Social and religious activities/donation/charity

114266 782314887 4.60 6846

Insurances and taxes 25854 259677460 1.53 10044

Repair and maintenance of house, vehicles, equipment

73863 935877884 5.50 12670

Transportation 108666 551663754 3.24 5077

Newspaper/communication 99457 494212722 2.91 4969

Disaster related expenses 9804 54438900 0.32 5553

Input cost for agriculture/livestock/other enterprises

19904 310079926 1.82 15579

Health 111790 2602012410 15.30 23276

Education 87664 2869255100 16.87 32730

Cash losses 3349 44652800 0.26 13333

Other - - - -

Total n=117930 17006238963 100.00 144206


As regards to the income of the HH in the district, remittances was found to be major contributor to total

annual income, which accounted for 47.11 percent followed by nonagricultural wages/salary (25.46%),

and own enterprise (11.77%). Sale of agricultural products come to be fourth position with contribution

of 5.14 percent of the income. Combining the income from different heading as given in the following

table the average income is found to Rs. 2, 34, 403.

Table 1.234: Income distribution of HH by different sources

Major source of household income

HH (No.)

Total income Average income/HH

(Rs) Rs %

Agricultural wages/labor 8165 474309040 1.72 58091

Nonagricultural wages/salary 48585 7025370035 25.46 144599

Sale of agricultural products 29114 1419697873 5.14 48764

Livestock/fisheries sale 15736 570035652 2.07 36225

Milk and milk product sale 17060 731083000 2.65 42854

Remittances 51025 13002195520 47.11 254819

Occupational work (tailoring, black

smithy, carpentry etc)

2233 544206000

1.97 243750

Forestry related products sale 1413 145894560 0.53 103230

Pension 1431 176317480 0.64 123196

Own enterprise 15933 3247489440 11.77 203824

Others 1971 261830740 0.95 132811

Total n=117930 27598429340 100.00 234023


From the analysis of income and expenditure, it can be concluded that on an average there is a per annum

surplus of income by Rs. 89,817per household.

2.18 Credit Situation

Credit is one of the important economic indicators, which is taken either to sustain the present status of

life or to invest on something else in order to take benefit from the investment. In this regards, a total of

44.05 percent of households have taken loan during the last 12 months.



Table1.24: Frequency and percentage of HH taking loan

Loan taken

HH

No. %

Yes 51952 44.05

No 65980 55.95

Total 117932 100.00


2.19 Agricultural Insurance for Protecting Risks on Crops and Livestock

It is evident that climate change is becoming alarming to the survival and there is a growing threat of

climate and weather related risks on crop and livestock. A total of 97.87 percent of the households have

reported that there is presence of climate and weather related risks on crops and livestock production.

Table1.25: HH (%) reporting presence of climatic and weather related risks in agriculture

Possibility of risks on crop/livestock

HH

No.

%

Yes 115424 97.87

No 2511 2.13

Total 117935 100.00


Among the households reporting presence of climate and weather related risks, the risk of diseases and

pests in cereals and vegetable was found to be from 44.04 percent in rice to 67.23 percent in mustard.

Similarly drought was reported by 32.95 to 44.14 percent households as risk in cereals and vegetable.

Risk of flood on rice was reported by 12.32 percent of households while risks due to hailstone on wheat,

maize and potato were reported by 15.90, 15.15, and 13.61percent of households respectively.

Table 1.26: HH (%) reporting high risks in various crops/livestock due to climatic hazards

Crop/ livestock Disease pest Drought Flood Hail stone All Others

Rice 44.04 40.14 7.88 6.38 1.34 0.22

Wheat 48.22 37.12 1.73 12.13 0.67 0.13

Maize 51.99 44.02 0.00 3.99 0.00 0.00

Mustard 67.23 26.81 1.49 2.98 0.00 1.49

Vegetable 52.82 42.48 0.94 2.82 0.00 0.94

Potato 53.28 32.95 0.00 11.15 1.31 1.31

Cow 82.34 10.09 0.00 2.52 2.52 2.52

Buffalo 88.43 1.45 0.00 1.45 7.23 1.45

Goat 86.91 4.32 0.00 0.00 6.62 2.16

Chicken 87.10 4.30 0.00 0.00 4.30 4.30

Duck 100 0 0 0 0 0

Other 45.45 45.45 0.00 4.55 0.00 4.55

Total 51.52 35.05 3.77 7.76 1.33 0.57

Source: Annex Table 26 (Figures in the above table is multiple answer does not match with 100%)

Regarding the risk on livestock species, all species are reported to be vulnerable to risks of diseases and

pests as well as risk of drought to some extent. As 88.43 percent of the household have reported that

buffalo was more prone to risks due to diseases and pests followed by goat (86.91%), cow (85.71%) and

chicken (87.10%). Drought effects were reported by 10.09 percent in cow followed by 4.32 and 4.30

percent in goat and chicken.

In order to protect from the risk of damage of valuable property insurance is a means of reimbursement

of one’s property. There are number of insurance companies actively working in this field. In regards to



it, an enquiry into the knowledge on insurance companies and schemes, it is interesting to note that 1.69

percent of the households are found to have known about it.

Table 1.27: Frequency and percentage of households having knowledge of insurance

Knowledge on crop/ livestock insurance

HH

No. %

Yes 1989 1.69

No 115948 98.31

Total 117937 100.00


Among the household who have knowledge on crop/livestock insurance only none ofthe household has

insured their crops and livestock (Source: Annex Table 28)

2.20 Reasons for Non-Insuring

Though there were so many types of hazards likely to occur due to climate change in crops and livestock,

none of the HH are found to have insured their crops and livestock. Some people might not be willing to

insure and pay the premium and some people might not know about insurance and its policy. However,

an enquiry on it revealed that out of 1710 respondent all cited lack of information as the major reason for

non-insuring.

Table 1.29: Frequency and percentage of household reporting reason for not doing insurance

Reason for not doing insurance

HH

No. %

Lack of information 1710 100

High premium rate - -

No access to the service - -

Poor insurance service - -

Problem in getting back the insured amount - -

Others - -

Total 1710 100


TV/Radio, and newspaper were reported as major sources of information on agriculture insurance by

67.36 percent of the respondents in both the cases.

Table 1.30: Households reporting source of information on agricultural insurance

Source

HH

No. %

Insurance agent - -

DADOs/DLSOs - -

Newspaper 576 67.36

TV/Radio 576 67.36

ASCs/LSCs - -

Leader farmer/Neighbor/Relatives - -

Other - -

Total n=855


Out of 1989 households, only 855 (42.99%) reported having knowledge about 75 percent subsidy on

agriculture insurance.



Table 1.31: Households reporting 75% subsidy on agricultural insurance premium

Response HH

No. %

Yes 855 42.99

No 1134 57.01

Total 1989 100.00




CHAPTER III: AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTIVITY

As majority of the population rely on agriculture for their livelihood, land holding is common and

integral part of life. In this context, this chapter focuses on land holding, land use by type, cropped area

with cropping patterns, crop production, marketing of farm product, livestock, poultries and fisheries,

milk and milk product.

3.1 Land Holding

In this regards, almost all the households (96.41%) in the district have owned their land.

3.2 Use of Land by Type

Usually in Nepal, land use in general can be classified into six categories viz. (i) Temporary crops (ii)

Temporary meadow (iii) Temporary fallow (iv) Permanent crops (v) Permanent meadow and (vi)

Appropriate for forest and (vii) Appropriate for fishery. Temporary crop was grown with average area of

0.7817 ha/HH and overall irrigated land is 0.522 ha/HH with average number of parcel land is 3.67. Use

of temporary fallow is also very low with average area 0.0050 ha/HH. For permanent crops, the average

area covered is 0.0294 ha/HH with average irrigated area of 0.0016 ha. The land use for permanent

meadow was not reported. Average land appropriate for forest and fishery were found 0.0010 and 0.0016

ha.

Table 2.15: Distribution of HH using land by type

Type of land

HH (no.) Ave. area (ha)

Ave. no. of parcel

Ave. irrigated (ha)

Temporary crop 117930 .7817 3.67 .5225

Temporary graze land 11163 .0252 4.50 -

Temporary fallow 11163 .0050 3.00 -

Permanent crops 72919 .0294 1.31 .0016

Permanent graze land - - - -

Appropriate for forest 5582 .0010 - -

Appropriate for fishery 5582 .0016 - -

n=117930


3.3 Source of Irrigation:

Out of 65132 respondents, who have managed to irrigate in their field with different sources of irrigations

for temporary crops, majority (65.54%) of the HH have reported that their source of irrigation was tube

well, boring, which is followed by continuous flow canal (20.19%), and mixed (7.82%).

Table 2.2: Distribution of HH by sources of irrigation in the district

Sources of irrigation

Temp. crops Irrigated

agriculture land Temp Graze App. forest

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Tube well, boring 42685 65.54 - - - - - -

Continuous flow canal 13150 20.19 - - - - - -

Natural flow canal 2790 4.28 - - - - - -

Pond/ well 279 0.43 - - - - - -

Mixed 5094 7.82 - - - - - -

Others 1134 1.74 - - - - - -

Total 65132 100.00 - - - - - -



Source: Annex Table 35, 36, 37, and 38

Leased land

Few segment of population (2.92%) have given land to others on lease and the average holding of leased

out land is 0.0311 ha/household.

Table 2.3: Frequency and percentage of households reporting leased out land and holding size

Leased out land

HH

Area (ha) Mean (ha/HH) No. %

Khet 3668.57 .0311 3438

2.92

Bari - -

Total 3668.57 .0156 117936 100.00


A total of 16470 households (13.97%) had owned land on lease from others.

Table 2.4: Frequency and percentage of households reporting leased in land and holding size

Leased in land HH

No. %

Yes 16470 13.97

No 101457 86.03

Total 117927 100.00


Out of 111823.46 ha leased in land, major portion i.e. 10379.35 ha (87.79%) of land are found to have

leased on crop sharing basis followed by 888.35 ha (7.51%) on cash contract basis. There are various

ways of leasing land in the district viz. contract (kind), exchange for service, mortgage and other,

however the proportion of them is found to be low.

Table 2.5: Area of leased land by type of land tenure system

Type of land tenure system Khet Bari Orchard Pond Total %

Contract (cash) 888.35 - - - 888.35

7.51

Contract (kind) 429.16 - - - 429.16 3.63

Crop sharing 10379.35 - - - 10379.35 87.79

Exchange for service 66.15 - - - 66.15 0.56

Mortgage 60.34 - - - 60.34 0.51

Others - - - - -


3.4 Cropping Patterns and Cropped Area

Rice-Wheat-Fallow (42.59%), Rice-Fallow-Fallow (35.23%) and Rice-Rice-Wheat (8.36%) were major

cropping pattern of rain fed low land with mean land holding of 0.44, 0.40 and 0.13 ha/HH.

Table 2.6: Cropping patterns in rain fed low land and mean land holdings area

Type of cropping pattern

Total area (ha)

Percentage of total land area (%)

Mean ( ha/HH)

Rice-Rice-Wheat 10126.83 8.36 0.13

Rice-Wheat-Fallow 51616.94 42.59 0.44

Rice-Wheat-Maize 2036.59 1.68 0.04

Rice-Wheat-Vegetable 2371.72 1.96 0.04




Upland rice-fallow-fallow (63.09%), Maize/Millet-Fallow (27.25%), and Vegetable-Vegetable (4.84%)

were major cropping pattern in rain fed upland area.

Table 2.76: Cropping patterns in rain fed upland and mean land area

Type of cropping pattern

Total area (ha)

Percentage of total land area (%)

Mean ( ha/HH)

Maize/Upland rice-Fallow - - -

Maize/Millet-Fallow 2787.91 31.02 0.2497

Maize/Millet-Wheat - - -

Upland rice-Fallow-fallow 5670.32 63.09 1.0158

Maize-Tori-Fallow - - -

Maize- Rice-Wheat - - -

Maize-Barley - -

Jute-Tori-Fallow 94.51 1.05 0.0169

Jute-Wheat- Fallow - - -

Vegetable-Vegetable 434.72 4.84 0.0195

Vegetable-Maize - - -

Off season vegetable - - -

Others - - -

Total (n= 117930) 8987.45 100.00 0.0762


3.5 Use of improved seeds

About 33.66 percent of the HHs reported to have used improved seeds. Among them74.84 percent

households were using improved seeds of rice followed by wheat (72.23%) percent and potato(10.74%).

Table 2.8: HH using improved seeds (%)

Use of improved seeds

HH

No. %

Yes 39674 33.64

No 78256 66.36

Total 117930 100.00


Rice-Pulses-Fallow 4528.15 3.74 0.04

Rice-Wheat-Moong (green gram) 710.61 0.59 0.03

Rice-Wheat-Dhaincha (Sun hemp) 18.90 0.02 0.00

Rice-Potato-Fallow 2165.63 1.79 0.26

Rice-Maize-Fallow 511.27 0.42 0.02

Rice-Fallow-Fallow 42704.59 35.23 0.40

Rice-Barley-Fallow 926.15 0.76 0.01

Rice-Millet-Fallow 0.00 0.00 0.00

Other 3487.25 2.88 0.06

Total (n= 117930) 121204.64 100.00 1.03



Table 2.9: HH using different kinds of seeds (%)

Commodity

HH

Nos %

Rice 27600 74.84

Wheat 26638 72.23

Maize 1395 3.78

Oilseed - -

Pulses 1116 3.03

Vegetables 3349 9.08

Potato 3961 10.74

Sugarcane 2233 6.05

Other - -

Total 36882 100.00


3.6 Marketing of Farm Product

Following table presents the distribution of HH selling their farm product in different places. Rural haat

Bazaar is found to be the major place where 45.14 percent of households sell their products, which is

followed by farm gate accounting for 13.35 percent of households. Only 11.08 percent of household sells

their product at district market.

Table 2.10: Frequency and percentage of HH selling produce at different places

Place of sale

HH

No. %

Farm gate 3070 13.35

Rural haat bazar 10380 45.14

District market 2548 11.08

Vendor 279 1.21

Cooperatives 0.00

Sell centers 4483 19.50

Others 2512 10.92

Total 22992 100.00

Source: Annex table 49

3.7 Use of Chemical Fertilizers and Pesticides

As regards to the use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides out of a sample of 117935 HH, 94.56 percent of

the households have used chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Table 2.11: Use of fertilizer and pesticides by the households

Use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides

HH

No %

Yes 111517 94.56

No 6418 5.44

Total 117935 100.00


As has been reported by MoAD, the total amount of fertilizer sold in the district is divided by the

cultivated area to obtain average amount of Nitrogen, Phosphate and Potash used in farm in different

varieties of crops, which is given in the following table. However, the amounts of different fertilizer

nutrients used are all lower than the recommended dose in all kinds of crops whether it is irrigated or

rain-fed.



Table 2.12: Amount of fertilizer nutrients used by HH in different crops (kg/ha)

Nitrogen Phosphate Potash

46.08 31.12 1.80

Source: MoAD (2014)

From the following table, it is clear that out of 111511 households using fertilizers and pesticides, 61.47

percent of households reported that fertilizers and pesticides were available as and when needed.

Table 2.13: Frequency and percentage of households reporting availability of chemical fertilizer

and pesticides

Response

HH

No. %

Yes 68544 61.47

No 42967 38.53

Total 111511 100.00


3.8 Sources of Fertilizers/Pesticides

There are various sources of buying fertilizers/pesticides for the use of agricultural purposes. Among

them agro-vets was the main source, from where 42.96 percent of the HH buy them, followed by

cooperatives (38.97%).

Table 2.14: HH buying fertilizers/pesticides from different sources (%)

Source

HH

No. %

Cooperatives 23550 38.97

Agro vets 25962 42.96

DADOs/ASCS 279 0.46

Neighbor farmers 4762 7.88

Relatives 2530 4.19

Others 3349 5.54

Total 60432 100.00


A total of 11829 household reported that they get the information on safe use of fertilizer and pesticides.

Out of them 30.97 percent of HHs reported neighbor farmers as their source followed bypurchasing shop

(26.26%) and friends (23.90%).

Table 2.15: Frequency of households reporting source of information for safe use of fertilizer and

pesticides

Source

HH

No. %

From Purchasing Shop 3106 26.26

Extension Service 279 2.36

Neighboring Farmers 3664 30.97

Friends 2827 23.90

Relatives - -

Own Experience 2233 18.87

Other - -

Total 11829 100.00




3.9 Reason for Low Use of Fertilizers/Pesticides:

An enquiry into the reason for inadequate use of fertilizer nutrients/pesticides by the farmers, lack of

money is reported by 89.83 percent of the households and non-availability in time was reported by 5.09

percent households.

Table 2.16: HH reporting reasons for low use of fertilizers/pesticides

Reason

HH

No. %

Not available 2512 5.09

No money 44362 89.83

Other 2511 5.08

Total 49385 100.00


There is very low existence of advice on safe use of fertilizer and pesticides as only 11.92percent of

households reported its existence.

Table 2.17: HH reporting on advisory on safe use of fertilizer and pesticides

Response

HH

No. %

Yes 14058 11.92

No 103866 88.08

Total 117924 100.00


3.10 Livestock Production

Livestock is closely associated with agricultural occupation of the population, hence is an integral part of

agriculture for their livelihood. Those who have adopted agriculture as their main occupation, used to

hold the livestock as well, as such 86.13 percent of the households have held livestock.

Table 2.18: Frequency and percentages of households raising livestock

Response

HH

No. %

Yes 101564 86.13

No 16362 13.87

Total 117926 100.00


The distribution of types of breeds of livestock owned by the HH is presented in the following table. As

revealed from the same table majority of the HH have raised local breeds of all kinds of livestock such as

cattle, buffaloes, goats, sheep and pigs. Improved breeds of cows was raised by 0.27 percent of the

households.

Table 2.197: Types of breeds of livestock owned

Animal Type HH HH(%) Animal (no.) Mean

(Animal/HH)

Cattle Local 70146 69.07 145262 2.07

Improved 279 0.27 279 1.00

Buffalo Local 52016 51.21 72164 1.39

Goat Local 48882 48.13 136049 2.78



Sheep Local 558 0.55 1674 3.00

Others Local 4222 4.16 7607 1.80

Total n=101564

Source: Annex Table 57(Note: Total of the percentage will not match with 100 as it is multiple answers)

3.12 Livestock Housing and Feeding

Regarding the livestock housing and feeding 50.08 percent of the HH have reared their livestock in the

shed separately; it was followed by the residential house (28.43%) and both types of housing (21.50%).

Table 2.20: Place of housing of livestock

Place of housing livestock HH

No. %

In the shed separately 50858 50.08

In the residential house 28869 28.43

Both 21835 21.50

Total 101562 100.00


3.13 Milk and Milk Products

Among those HH who have raised livestock, only 15.42 percent have reported that they sell milk and

milk products. The amount of milk sold per annum was found to be 559.36 litres per household.

Table 2.21: Milk and milk products production and sale

Response

HH Average milk sold/year

(litre) No. %

Yes 15662 15.42 559.36

No 85899 84.57 -

Total 101561 100.00 Source: Annex Table 59 and 60

Large percentage (42.73%) of the HH sold their milk at home followed by 12.93 percent at village,

district headquarter, and at hotel.

Table 2.22: HH selling milk at different places

Different Place to sell Milk

HH

No. %

Home 6455 42.73

Collection center 1116 7.39

Village 1954 12.93

Neighbor 558 3.69

District headquarter 1954 12.93

Hotel 1954 12.93

Others 1116 7.39

Total 15106 100.00




3.14 Feeds and feeding

Regarding the type of feeding for the livestock, stall feeding was practiced by 17.21 percent household

while feeding in pasture land was reported by 6.04 percent. Stall feeding as well as feeding in pasture

land both was reported by 76.75 percent households.

Table 2.23: HH with different type of feeding

Type of feeding HH

No. %

Stall feeding 17480 17.21

Feeding in pasture land 6138 6.04

Both 77943 76.75

Total 101561 100.00


Regarding the type of feeds given to the livestock, fodder/straw constituted major portion of livestock

feed as it was fed by 73.28 percent of households followed by 50.50 percent who fed green grasses and

6.84% of HHs feed concentrates to their livestock.

Table 2.24: Livestock feeds and feeding types

Types of Feeds

HH

No. (%)

Fodder/straw 65960 73.28

Green Grasses 45462 50.50

Forage 3628 4.03

Concentrates 6158 6.84

Mixed 16537 18.37

Other 0.00

Total 90014 100.00


3.14 Poultry

Poultry was raised by 14.82 percent of the households in the district.

Table 2.25: Households raising poultry

Rearing of poultry

HH

No. %

Yes 17479 14.82

No 100449 85.18

Total 117928 100.00


Of the total birds, local breeds of poultry birds were raised by most of the households and only 3.19

percent of households raised improved breeds of poultry. Improved breeds were being raised only in case

of poultry. Those who have raised poultry in the farm, the average number of improved broiler per farm

is found to be at 500. On the other hand, the average number of local cock and local hen is found to be

29.50 and 41.78 respectively. Similarly, the average number of ducks per HH was found to be 4.47 for

local cock and 4.60 for local hen and around 4.60 and 4.86 in case of pigeon

Table 2.26: Average number of improved and local poultry breed reared

Types of birds No. of HHs % Sum Mean

Poultry



Local Chick 1413 8.09 5617 3.97

Local Cock 3159 18.08 93202 29.50

Local Hen 2880 16.48 120327 41.78

Local dry - - - - -

Improved Broiler 558 3.19 279080 500.00

Improved Layer - - - - -

Duck

Local Chick 558 3.19 2791 5.00

Local Cock 3088 17.67 13800 4.47

Local Hen 3367 19.26 15475 4.60

Local Dry - - - -

Pigeon

Local Chick 1674 9.58 4186 2.50

Local Cock 10398 59.49 47820 4.60

Local Hen 9839 56.29 47820 4.86

Local Dry 279 1.60 558 2.00

Total n=17479


3.16 Fishery

It was surprising that though the nature of the district is plains terai, fishery is not found to be one of the

familiar components of agriculture, the share of households in this field is found to be 1413 households

with average area of 1.52 ha of pond area. Average quantity of fish sold was 541 kg per respondent

household per year in the district

Table2.27: Frequency of HH involved in fisheries, pond area and amount of fish sold

HH (No.)

Number of

pond/HH

Pond area/pond (ha)

Quantity of Fish Sold (Kg)

1413 3.08 1.52 541


3.17 Forest

As regards to the HH involving in forest land, a total of 2233 (47.06%) of the HH were involved in

community forest with the average holding 27.00 ha /HH. Similarly, households involving incompact

forest is 11.77 percent with the average holding 1 ha /HH. While majority of household 42.86 percent

were involving in other forest area.

Table2.28: Frequency and percentage of HH having different forest area

Different forest area No of HHs % of HHs Total area

(ropani) Mean(ha)

Compact Forest 558 11.77 558 1.00

Scatter Forest 558 11.77 837.24 1.50

NTFP Area 837 17.65 3348.96 4.00

Community Forestry 2233 47.06 60281.28 27.00

Other Forest Area 558 11.77 1116.32 2.00

Total 4744 100.01




CHAPTER IV: CLIMATE CHANGE, AGRO & AGRO-MET ADVISORY

One of the major components of BRCH project is to provide timely and proper use of weather forecasts,

agro-advisory and agro-met advisory operations in order to increase production and productivity of

commodities through proper use of introduced agricultural management information system. By the

impact of climate change, environment relating to eco-systems become more vulnerable to natural

hazards, which need to be adjusted in existing practices, processes or structures in order to counter

potential future disasters. Through the warnings and advisory services, it is expected that BRCH project

might benefit the people residing in the study districts and climate-vulnerable communities in particular.

4.1 Climatic Hazards, their Occurrence and Support

The survey result about the experience on climate change by the community revealed that the HH

experiencing climate change was during the last one year is reported by 75.49 percent of the HH out of

117926 households. In case of climatic hazards, 97.15 percent of the HH who have experienced climate

change reported extreme high temperature which is followed by experience on drought (87.65%),

extreme cold (83.57%), and hail storm (45.51%).

Table 3.1: Experience on different kinds of climatic hazards (extreme events) during last one year

Experiencing climate change HH

No. %

Climate change 89021 75.49

Experiencing Climatic Hazards

Hail Storm 40384 45.51

Extreme high temperature 86215 97.15

Extreme cold 74160 83.57

Extreme Frost 33533 37.79

Floods 26133 29.45

Drought 77788 87.65

Others 4186 4.72

Total 88744 100.00

Source: Annex Table 69 and 70(Note: Total of the percentage will not match with 100 as it is multiple

answers)

At the time of occurrence of hazards, it is natural and obvious to seek support from the government as

well as from the NGOs/INGO. In this regard, out of 87052 households who got support, 78.70 percent

reporting family support as main support followed by their own saving (61.36%). Support from their

assets and friend/relative was reported by 30.60 and 16.71 percent of the households.

Table 3.2: Households reporting support from different agencies during climatic hazards

Agencies

HH

No. %

Government support 2251 2.59

Family support 68507 78.70

INGO 1692 1.94

Saving 53419 61.36

Asset 26638 30.60

Friend/relative 14548 16.71

Others 1674 1.92

Total 87052 100.00




At the time of occurrence of hazards, it is the responsibility of the people to protect their life and their

goods, agricultural crops, livestock etc. provided that if the people have knowledge and experience about

the reduction of hazard due to climate change. In this regards, 95.19 percent of household reported that

they protect their lives followed by protecting household goods (48.89%), and protecting livestock

(35.31%).

Table 3.3: Households taking measures to mitigate climatic hazards

Measures

HH

No.

%

Protect lives 83145 95.19

Protect household goods 42707 48.89

Protect agriculture 17915 20.51

Protect livestock 30842 35.31

Protect others 1395 1.60

Total 87349 100.00


(Note: Total of the percentage will not match with 100 as it is multiple answers)

4.2 Experience on different types Climatic Extremes in different Seasons

During last 10-15 years, 83.52% of the household reported experiencing change in climate.

Table 3.4: Households experiencing climate change in last 10 - 15 years

Response

HH

No. %

Yes 98493 83.52

No 19431 16.48

Total 117924 100.00


Among HH who had experienced change in climate, 60.75, 71.09, and 51.31 percent of the households

reported less rainfall during dry, rainy, and winter season while 8.52, 26.57, and 18.83 percent reported

higher rain fall during dry, rainy, and winter season. Frequent floods and droughts were reported by

17.69 and 64.10 percent households in rainy season. Increased temperature was reported by 65.55, 55.03,

and 29.92 percent households during dry, rainy and winter season. More cold or foggy days was reported

by 49.42 percent of the households during winter season (Table 3.5).

Table 3.5: HH experiencing different types of climatic extremes (%)

Types of Climatic Extreme

Dry Season

(Jan-April)

Rainy Season

(May-August)

Winter Season

(September-

December)

No. % No. % No. %

Less overall rainfall 59838 60.75 70021 71.09 50539 51.31

More overall rainfall 8390 8.52 26169 26.57 18545 18.83

More frequent drought 69659 70.73 63133 64.10 50539 51.31

More frequent flood 4186 4.25 17428 17.69 5320 5.40

Strong wind 52267 53.07 32048 32.54 15511 15.75

More cold spells or foggy days

29726 30.18 8651 8.78 48675 49.42

Higher temperature 64564 65.55 54203 55.03 29465 29.92

Frequent hailstorm 12072 12.26 9804 9.95 17986 18.26

Lower ground water table 70686 71.77 48252 48.99 44939 45.63

Total n=98493




4.3 Early Warning Messages

Though there are some services of early warning messages through various organizations, these messages

were not being implemented by the community as they have less capacity to cope with disaster. They are

more dependent on natural on natural resources for their livelihoods. In this regards, the survey result

shows that the awareness on early warning message about climate/weather hazards were reported by 7.93

percent of the HH in the district.

Table 3.6: Households reporting receipt of early warning messages

Response HH

No. %

Yes 9351 7.93

No 108580 92.07

Total 117931 100.00


Among various sources of early warning messages, majority of HHs (96.83%) have reported that the

early warning was received from Radio/TV followed by bulletin/newspaper (26.29%) and telephone

(15.87%).

Table 3.7: Households reporting receipt of early warning from different sources

Sources

HH

No. %

Telephone 1395 15.87

Radio/TV 8516 96.83

Siren 279 3.17

Colorful flag 558 6.35

Hand mike 837 9.52

Bulletin/newspaper 2304 26.20

Others 279 3.17

Total 8795 100.00


4.3.1 Perception about the Need of Types of Communication Media for Early Warning

A total of 94.04 percent of the householdspreferred digital display board, FM Radio/TV (78.38%), SMS

on mobile (61.93%), and telephone (46.28%) as medium for delivery of early information. Internet is

preferred by 4.81 percent of theHHs.

Table 3.8: Households (%) selecting suitable EWS and agricultural information medium

Medium for delivery of Early information HH

No. %


SMS on mobile 72504 61.93

Siren 24946 21.31

FM Radio/TV 91760 78.38

Newspaper 41887 35.78

Digital display board 110097 94.04

Internet 5635 4.81

Others 2233 1.91

Total 117074 100.00




Agro Vet was given the highest priority for placing the digital display board by 47.62 percent of the

households. Second priority was given DADO/DLSO offices (33.66%) followed by

Agriculture/Livestock Sub Center (14.30%).

Table 3.9: Priority of location suitable for Digital Display Board

Location HH

No. %

DADO/DLSO offices 38379 33.66

Agriculture/Livestock Sub Center 16308 14.30

VDC/DDC offices 2808 2.46

Markets 2232 1.96

Agro Vet 54294 47.62

Other place 0 0.00

Total 114021 100.00


4.3.2 Accessibility to Agricultural Advice and Sources

There are various sources of agro and agro-met advisory service providers in the district such as District

Agriculture Development Office (DADO), Livestock Service Centre (LSC), Agricultural Research Farm,

NGOs/INGOs, and Agro Vets etc. in the district. However, the survey result shows that 16.17 percent of

the HH are found to have received agro advisory service during the last 12 months (Annex Table 79).

Sources of agro advisories

Among those HH who have received advisory, 279 households reported DADO as their source of agro

advisory.

4.3.3 Need for Agro Advisory

At present thought overwhelming majority of the respondents are found to have not taken advisory, they

were interested to have advice from the service providers. In this regards, 98.66 percent of the households

have preferred mobile service, 93.25 percent digital display board at district office, 91.37 percent toll free

service, and 37.50 percent telephone.

Table 3.10: HH preferring advisory services by type

Types of advisory

HH

No. %

Mobile service 102491 98.66


Newspaper/Bulletin 30914 29.76

Toll free 94920 91.37

Internet service 9578 9.22

Digital display board 96873 93.25

Others 3664 3.53

Total 103886 100.00




4.3.4 Communication and Media for Agricultural Program

For the development of any region or place communication plays an important role. There are number of

communication media such as FM radio, television, newspaper etc., through which agriculture

programmes are being broadcasted in order to make farmers aware of adopting farming system and

disseminating information on pre-warning of climate and weather. However, from the survey it is

observed that the percentage of HH listening agriculture programme on radio is found to be quite low at

only 2.13 percent of the households regularly listened. Only 1.21 percent of the household reported

watching agricultural program in television and 13.91 percent of theHH read newspapers and magazines.

This shows that communication media are not effectively penetrating to general mass of people (annex

Tables 82, 83 and 84)



Annex1

Average Maximum and Minimum Temperature and Rainfall, Lahan (2000-2010)

Month

Maximum Temperature ( 0C) Minimum Temperature ( 0C)

Rainfall (cm)

Rainy Days

January 22.1 9.1 25.5 4

February 27.3 14.4 15.4 2

March 30.8 16.7 12.4 2

April 33.6 22.2 92 6

May 34.6 24.4 123.3 10

June 34.8 24.6 352.1 16

July 34.4 24.7 337.3 16

August 34.2 25.4 168.1 10

September 33.3 24.8 176.5 9

October 30.8 22.9 96.5 4

November 29.6 21.4 0 0

December 24 11.4 0 0

published by: government of nepal district profile_1466674708.pdf · government of nepal ... 2.19...

Documents